Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program

Non-notable academic program between two universities; no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources; Wikipedia is not a directory of academic programs and requirements Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the barely noteworthy academic departments, faculties and remote campuses that that have their own entries, I'm surprised to see a medical program from two top US Schools up for deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherited. I'd be more than happy to review any of the allegedly non-notable entities you mentioned for AFD. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability isn't inherited" is a slogan which does not apply here. Which school a program is at is irrelevant to its notability? That doesn't make sense. Berkeley and UCSF have medical programs consistently ranked in the top 10 in the US, often in the top 5. Hairhorn (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the one who wrote the original article. Thank you for starting a discussion about my page! It's true that both UCSF's medical school and UC Berkeley's school of public health are consistently ranked in the top 10 (UCSF is currently 5th in both research and primary care rankings by US News and World Report), and given that graduates of the JMP receive an MD from UCSF and an MS from Berkeley, the prestige isn't even really inherited--it's immediate. And anyway, on the Category:Schools of medicine in the United States page there are eight medical schools of varying prestige listed, so it seems that notoriety is a variable standard to hold Wiki pages to. The UC Berkeley-UCSF Joint Medical Program page is indeed specific to a program that has only 16 students per year, but it is more than an academic department--it is a model for medical education using case-based small-group learning that has been integrated as a fundamental part of the curriculum at Harvard, UCSF, Cornell, and many other of the top medical schools in the country. There isn't a lot of material online about the program, although here are a few mentions of the JMP on some random web pages: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Anyway, perhaps I didn't do enough to explain just how influential the JMP has been in setting an example as an alternative model to medical education, so I can go back and edit the page a bit. I appreciate the discussion, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks! MrHatHat (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Merge into one of the parent university's articles, or delete because it is not verifiable with reliable secondary sources, and as such, notability cannot be established. Click23 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the writer's explanation above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and even if it wasn't it's a reasonable way to handle something that doesn't easily fit at either school's article. JJL (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those rare cases where, given the unique factor and the notability of the two orgs, you could argue that notability is inherited and also apply IAR. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpacemanSpiff's argument. It can't be merged into one school or the other, and the content cannot be duplicated into both.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.